U.P.B. Sci. Bull., Series C, Vol. 72, Iss.

2, 2010

ISSN 1454-234x

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF COAL, NATURAL GAS AND

NUCLEAR FUEL LIFE CYCLES BY CHAINS OF
ELECTRICAL ENERGY PRODUCTION
Adrian Alexandru BADEA1, Irina VOD2, Cristian Florian DINC3
Obiectivul principal al articolului const n compararea din punct de vedere
al impactului global asupra mediului nconjurtor a filierelor de producere a
energiei electrice utiliznd crbunele, gazele naturale i uraniul.
Pentru un studiu complet a celor trei filiere energetice, s-a utilizat analiza de
inventar, analiza de impact i analiza de sensibilitate. n felul acesta au fost
identificai principalii poluani generai n cadrul fiecrei etape: extracie, tratare,
transport i combustie respectiv a principalelor clase de impact reinute pe baza
poluanilor inventariai. n cadrul analizei de sensibilitate, indicatorii de impact au
fost grupai n trei clase, acestea fiind ponderate diferit.
n concluzie, filiera de uraniu este cea mai puin poluant. n schimb, filiera
de crbune prezint un puternic impact asupra mediului nconjurtor n special
datorit lipsei echipamentelor de tratare a gazelor de ardere.
The main objective of the paper consists in comparing the chains of electrical
energy production from coal, natural gases and uranium from the point of view of
their environmental impact.
For a complete study of the three chains, inventory, impact, and sensitivity
analyses have been used. Thus, the main pollutants generated during each stage:
extraction, treatment, transport and combustion, the main impact classes based on
the inventoried pollutants, respectively, have been identified. Within the sensitivity
analysis, the impact indicators have been grouped into three classes, with different
shares.
In conclusion, the uranium chain is the least pollutant, while the coal chain
has a great environmental impact, especially due to the lack of flue gas treatment
equipment.

Keywords: electrical energy, coal, natural gas, uranium, life cycle assessment
(LCA)

Prof., Chair: Energy Production and Utilization, University POLITEHNICA of Bucharest,

Romania, a_badea@rectorat.pub.ro
2
Eng., Energy Research and Modernizing Institute ICEMENERG, Bucharest, Romania
3
Lecturer, Chair: Energy Production and Utilization, University POLITEHNICA of Bucharest,
Romania, crisflor75@yahoo.com

222

Adrian Alexandru Badea, Irina Vod, Cristian-Florian Dinc

1. Introduction
The life cycle assessment (LCA) is a tool utilized for evaluating the
environmental impact on the assembly of activities associated with a product,
service, process or production chain, starting from the raw material extraction up
to the last waste elimination. [1].
The analysis of the life cycle includes four stages:
- Definition of objectives, of the functional unity and of the field of study;
- The inventory analysis, including emission data gathering;
- The impact analysis, during which emissions are translated into potential
impacts;
- Comparative assessment and interpretation of the results.
The paper represents the first stage of a more comprehensive study and
aims at establishing an optimum scenario for covering Romanias electrical
energy consumption in 2020, considering environmental impact.
According to the data presented in table 1, the share of fossil fuels will
continue to be high in 2020, as well. The absolute value for coal will increase, that
of natural gas will remain practically constant, while nuclear energy will register a
major increase [2].
Table 1
Production of electrical energy in 2007 and electrical energy production forecast at the level
of the year 2020
Indicators
2007 achieved
2020 forecast
m.u.
TWh
%
TWh
%
Electrical energy production
61.68
100
100
100
of which:
Total thermal, of which:
38
61.6
45.9
45.9
- Coal
20.86
54.9
34.9
76.0
- Natural gas
9.61
25.3
9.5
21.0
Hydro
15.97
25.9
32.5
32.5
Nuclear
7.71
12.5
21.6
21.6

2. Electrical energy production chains

The analyzed chains of electrical energy production are the following: the
coal, natural gas and uranium chains.
For the analyzed chains, the following analysis stages have been
considered: extraction, treatment, transport and combustion [3].
Within the analysis the following study hypotheses have been formulated:
The electrical energy production solutions by each type of fuel have been:
For coal, a technical solution consisting of circulating fluidized bed
combustion with supercritical parameters, with 45% efficiency has been
chosen. The coal utilized is hard coal. As a result of the calculations based

Comparative analysis of coal, natural gas and nuclear fuel life cycles by chains of electr. () 223

on the chosen coal composition, there resulted a low heating value of

27,000 [kJ/kg].
For natural gas, the technical solution of the gas-steam combined cycle
with 55% efficiency has been selected. The gas that was used had a low
heating value of 50,000 [kJ/kg].
For uranium the technology considered for producing nuclear energy at the
Cernavoda Nuclear power plant, is based on the CANDU type nuclear
reactor, operating on natural uranium from our country. The efficiency
considered for the electrical energy production along this chain is 35.5%
[4].
Own energy consumption during the different life cycle stages is covered on
the basis of the respective fuel by each chain.
The energy solutions utilized have not been equipped with flue gas treatment
equipment not to disadvantage a certain energy chain.
For uranium, non-radioactive emissions have been collected over the entire
life cycle and not by each stage of the former. Radioactive emissions, on the
contrary, have been collected by each life cycle stage (according to table 5).
The considered efficiencies for each life cycle stage have been [3,5]:
For coal (co): extraction ( ex=75%), treatment ( tr=95%), transport
( tp=85%), combustion ( cb=45%);
For natural gas (ng): extraction ( ex=90%), treatment ( tr=95%),
transport ( tp=90%), combustion ( cb=55%) ;
For uranium (u) : extraction ( ex=75%), treatment ( tr=95%), transport
( tp=85%), combustion ( cb=35,5%).
These values serve as orientation.
The average transport distance that has been considered in the case of natural
gas was 450 km, and in the case of coal, 100 km, respectively.
The functional unit for the three chains is of 1 TWh.
Fig. 1 presents the field of study for each chain.
After establishing the 1 TWh functional unit and the efficiencies of the
stages, starting from the low heating value of each fuel, the necessary amount of
fuel has been calculated by each stage and functional unit (FU). The reference unit
(RU) in this study represents the amount of fuel necessary during each stage for
producing 1 TWh of electrical energy. The emissions generated by the functional
unit have been calculated by means of relationship 1.
E r = Ei RU , [g/TWh].
(1)
Where:
Er recalculated pollutant emission by functional unit;
Ei initial emissions collected during the inventory stage, in g/kg of fuel;
RU - reference unit specific to each life cycle stage, in kg_fuel / TWh.

224

Adrian Alexandru Badea, Irina Vod, Cristian-Florian Dinc

1 TWh

1 TWh
Mcb=295*106 kg

cb=45%

COMBUSTION
Coal

cb=55%

Mtp=347*106 kg

tp=85%

TRANSPORT
Coal

cb=90%

Mtr=365*106 kg

tr=95%

TREATMENT
Coal

cb=95%

Mex=487*106 kg

ex=75%

EXTRACTION
Coal

cb=90%

1 TWh
Mcb=131*106 kg

COMBUSTION
Natural gas

cb=35,5%

Mtp=146*106 kg
TRANSPORT
Natural gas

cb=85%

Mtr=154*106 kg
TREATMENT
Natural gas

cb=95%

Mex=171*106 kg
EXTRACTION
Natural gas

cb=75%

Mcb=18*103 kg
COMBUSTION
Uranium
Mtp=21*103 kg
TRANSPORT
Uranium
Mtr=22*103 kg
TREATMENT
Uranium
Mex=30*103 kg
EXTRACTION
Uranium

Fig.1. Field of study for each chain

Within the inventory analysis, data on the generated environmental

polluting emissions by each life cycle stage have been gathered, and on the basis
of the inventoried pollutants, the classes have been identified.

3. Results of the analyzed chain inventory analysis

The following observations can be made on the emissions generated over
the coal chain (table 2) during the entire life cycle [6]:
From the quantitative point of view, the generated air emissions exceed by far
the emissions polluting the water and soil ecosystems. The main pollutants
generated over the coal life cycle are: CO2=1,020,011 t/FU, dust particles
(PM10=9,205 t/FU), SO2=6,699 t/FU, NO2=3,350 t/FU and CH4=912 t/FU.
Although the other pollutant values are insignificant, it is nevertheless
necessary to develop the impact analysis for determining their environmental
impact.
As concerns the share of pollutants by each stage of the life cycle, the
following aspects should be mentioned:
Carbon dioxide: of the total emissions, during the combustion stage,
approx. 993 kt/FU have been generated, representing about 97%. The next
stage from point of view of its share is transport, generating about 17
kt/UF, representing approximately 2% of the total CO2 emissions. During

Comparative analysis of coal, natural gas and nuclear fuel life cycles by chains of electr. () 225

the treatment and extraction stage, the share of CO2 emissions within the
total emissions is 0.4%, and 0.6%, respectively.
Dust has been almost entirely generated (99.7%) during the combustion
stage.
Sulfur dioxide: during the combustion stage approximately 6.5 kt/FU
representing about 97% of the total SO2 emissions, have been generated.
During the transport stage about 1.5% is generated, while the share of SO2
emissions does not surpass 1% during the extraction and treatment stages.
Nitrogen dioxide: As for the other pollutants, the combustion stage
generates the highest share of NOx emissions, about 93%. During the other
stages the shares are insignificant, except for the transport stage when the
percentage of NOx emissions generated is 5.5%.
Methane: In comparison with other pollutants, in the case of methane the
extraction stage generates the highest amount of about 60%, followed by
the treatment stage generating 40%. The combustion and transport stages
have insignificant emission methane values.
As in the case of the coal chain, the natural gas chain (table 3) registers the
highest values of emissions in the air ecosystem [7]. The main pollutants
generated over the natural gas life cycle are: carbon dioxide (CO2=437,909
t/FU), methane (CH4=3,740 t/FU), nitrogen dioxide (NO2=561 t/FU), carbon
monoxide (CO=283 t/FU), sulfur dioxide (SO2=275 t/FU);
Relating to the share of pollutants within each stage of the life cycle the
following aspects are worth-mentioning:
Carbon dioxide: of the total emissions, approximately 371 kt/FU are
generated during the combustion stage, representing about 85%. The
stages that follow, from the point of view of their share, are the extraction
share generating 9% and the treatment stage with 6%. The transport stage
has insignificant values of CO2 emissions.
Methane: is mainly generated during the extraction, 1,664 t/FU (44.5%),
treatment 1,111 t/FU (29.7%) and transport 920 (24.6%) stages, the
methane emissions generated during the combustion stage being
insignificant.
For nitrogen dioxide, the shares are the following: extraction (49.7%),
treatment (33.2%), combustion (16.9%), the transport stage being the least
polluting.
Carbon monoxide: the stage that has the highest share relating to CO
emissions is extraction (54%), followed by the treatment stage (36%). The
combustion and transport stages have the following shares: 9.5% and
0.5%, respectively.
As concerns sulfur dioxide, the extraction and treatment stages are mainly
responsible for generating this pollutant amounting to 59.4% and 39.7%,

226

Adrian Alexandru Badea, Irina Vod, Cristian-Florian Dinc

respectively. During the combustion stage, SO2 emissions do not surpass

1% of the total SO2 emissions.

Table 2

Pollutants corresponding to the coal life cycle (t/FU)

Coal

Extraction

Treatment

Transport

Combustion

Total

17,542
101
95
0.1
0.913
185
0.2
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

992,881
156
6,534
0.1
8.5
3,118
3.2
9,179
0.004
0.050
0.013
0.002
0.004
0.059
0.007
0.023
0.030
0.037
0.038
0.060
0.406
0.088

1,020,011
266
6,699
98.2
912
3,350
4.4
9,205
0.004
0.050
0.013
0.002
0.004
0.059
0.007
0.023
0.030
0.037
0.038
0.060
0.406
0.088

1.9143E-05
0
0.066

2.42E-05
16.7
1.208

0.015
0.130
0.437
0.014
0.010
0.222
0.047
0.114
0.100
0
0.039
0.156
0.010
0.317

0.015
0.130
0.437
0.014
0.010
0.222
0.047
0.114
0.100
0
0.039
0.156
0.010
0.317

Air
CO2
CO
SO2
NH3
CH4
NO2
N2O
Dust (PM10)
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Vanadium

5,712
5.4
42
59
542
28
0.6
7.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Phenol
NH4
COD

3.01E-06
10
0.685

Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chrome
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Vanadium

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

3,876
3.6
28
39
361
19
0.4
0.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Water
2.007E-06
6.67E-10
6.7
0
0.457
0
Agricultural soil
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Tables 4 and 5 present the non-radioactive and radioactive emissions

generated during the uranium life cycle.

Comparative analysis of coal, natural gas and nuclear fuel life cycles by chains of electr. () 227

Tabelul 3
Pollutants corresponding to the natural gas life cycle(t/FU)
Natural gas

Extraction

CO2
NO
CO
SO2
NH3
CH4
NO2
N2O
Dust (PM10)
Formaldehyde (CH2O)

39,596
12
153
163
0
1,664
279
0.345
13
0

DCO
Phenyl chloride

14
0

Lead

0.030

Treatment
Air
26,402
7.7
102
109
0
1,111
186
0.231
8.2
0
Water
55
0
Agricultural soil
3.3

Transport

Combustion

Total

440
14
1.4
0.648
0.336
920
0.570
0.004
0
0

371,471
8.7
27
1.9
21
45
95
0
62
8.6

437,909
42.4
283.4
274.5
21.3
3,740
560.6
0.580
83.2
8.6

0
0

0
0.005

69
0.005

0.001

3.3

By analyzing the radioactive and non-radioactive emissions generated over

the uranium chain, the following observations should be made:
The radioactive and non-radioactive emissions have been concentrated over
the entire uranium life cycle considering the stages (table 4 and 5). In order to
simplify the analysis of the uranium chain, global emissions at the level of the
life cycle have been compared;
From the quantitative point of view, the main pollutants emitted during the
uranium life cycle are: CO2=18,700 t/FU, SO2=40 t/UF, NO2=30 t/FU and
CH4=10 t/FU. Nevertheless, from the point of view of the powerful
environmental impact of the radioactive emissions, the development of an
impact analysis has been considered necessary.
Among the radioactive emissions, Rn-222 emission is considered the most
important one from the quantitative point of view (75% of the total radioactive
emissions generated during the life cycle). It is generated during uranium
extraction (1.3%) and milling (73.7%) stages.
Table 4
Non-radioactive emissions corresponding to the uranium life cycle (t/FU) [8]
Uranium
Total
CO2
18,700
CO
10
SO2
40
NH3
0.01
CH4
10
NO2
30
N2O
0.5
Dust (PM10)
10
Hydrogen Chloride (HCl)
0.8
Hydrogen Fluoride (HF)
0.1

228

Adrian Alexandru Badea, Irina Vod, Cristian-Florian Dinc

Tabelul 5
Radioactive emissions generated during the uranium life cycle in (TBq/FU) [9]
Radioactive
emissions
from the
uranium life
cycle

H-3
C-14
Aerosols
Noble gases
I-129
I-131
I-133
Rn-222
U-234
U-235
U-238
Pu-238
Pu-239

Extraction

Milling

Conversion

Fuel
enriching

Fuel
preparation

1.8E-09
1.3E-10
4.4E-10

Electrical
energy
production

0.079
0.0073
3.5E-07
1.5
9.5E-07

18.8

Reprocessing

0.024
0.038
381
2.7E-05
3.8E-07
1.7E-07

1,101.21
3.4E-07
1.5E-08
3.2E-07

1.7E-07
8.9E-09
1.3E-10
5.4E-12
1.2E-11

Total

0.103
0.045
3.5E-07
382.5
2.7E-05
1.33E-06
1.7E-07
1,120
5.1E-07
2.39E-08
3.2E-07
5.4E-12
1.2E-11

Thousands

Fig. 2 presents a comparison of the three chains studied from the point of
view of the CO2 emissions generated over the entire life cycle, thus pointing out
that the ratio: coal /natural gas/uranium is 1/0.43/0.02.
1.200
1,020,011
1.000

[t/FU]

800
600
437,909
400
200
18,700
0

Coal

Natural gas

Uranium

Fig. 2 Global CO2 emissions corresponding to the three energy chains

4. Impact analysis
Based on the pollutants inventoried during the inventory analysis, the
following impact classes have been identified: ADP Abiotic depletion potential,
GWP Global warming potential, AP Acidification potential, POCP
Photochemical ozone creation potential, EP-Eutrophication, HTP Human
Toxicity Potential, FAETP Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity potential, MAETP
Marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential, TETP- Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential, IIR
Impacts of Ionizing radiation [10].

Comparative analysis of coal, natural gas and nuclear fuel life cycles by chains of electr. () 229

The impact indicators have been calculated by means of the relationships

given in table 6. The legend is given below the table.
Table 6
Quantification of impact indicators
Impact class
Abiotic depletion
potential
[kg antimony eq./kg
emission]
Global warming
potential
[kg CO2 eq. /kg
emmission]
Acidification potential
[kg SO2 eq./kg
emmission]

Calculation relationship

ADP = ADPi m i

ADPuranium=0,00287
ADPnatural gas=0,0187
ADPlignite=0,0134

CO2, CH4,
N2O

GWP = GWPi m i

GWPCO2=1
GWPCH4=21
GWPN2O=310

SO2, NH3,
NO2

AP = APi m i

APSO2=1,2
APNH3=1,6
APNO2=0,5
POCPCO=0,027
POCPSO2=0,048
POCPCH4=0,006
POCPCH2O=0,519
POCPNO2=0,028
EPNO=0,200
EPNH3=0,350
EPNO2=0,130
EPCOD=0,022
EPNH4=0,350
HTPSO2=0,096
HTPNH3=0,100
HTPNO2=1,200
HTPPraf=0,820
HTPCH2O=0,830
HTPPb=3300
HTPFenol=0,520
HTPHCl=0,500
HTPHF=94
FAETPCH2O=8,3
FAETPpb=6,5
FAETPFenol=1,5
FAETPHF=4,6

Photochemical ozone
creation potential
[kg ethene eq./kg
emmission]

CO, SO2,
CH4, CH2O,
NO2

POCP = POCPi m i

Eutrophication
potential
[kg phosfate eq./kg
emmission]

NO, NH3,
NO2, COD,
NH4

EP = EPi m i

Human toxicity
potential
[kg 1,4 dichlorbenzene
eq./kg emmission]

SO2, NH3,
NO2, Praf,
CH2O, Pb,
Fenol, HCl,
HF etc

Freshwater aquatic
ecotoxicity potential
[kg 1,4 dichlorbenzene
eq./kg emmission]

CH2O, Pb,
Fenol, HF
etc

Marine aquatic
ecotoxicity potential
[kg 1,4 dichlorbenzene
eq./kg emmission]
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
potential
[kg 1,4 dichlorbenzene
eq./kg emmission]
Impacts of ionising
radiation
[year]

Used notations and

values

Pollutants

CH2O, Pb,
Fenol, HF
etc
CH2O, Pb,
Fenol, HF
etc
H-3,C-14, I129, I-131,
I-133,
Rn-222, U234, U-235,
U-238, Pu238, Pu-239

HTP = HTPcom,i mcom,i

i

com

FAETP = FAETPcom,i mcom,i

i

com

MAETP = MAETPcom,i mcom,i

i

com

TETP = TETPcom,i mcom,i

i

com

IIR = FDcom,i acom,i

com

The legend:
APi acidification potential of i substance emitted in the air;
POCPi photochemical polluting potential of emitted i substance;
EPi eutrophication potential of emitted i substance;

MAETPCH2O=1,6
MAETPpb=750
MAETPFenol=0,056
MAETPHF=52
TETPCH2O=0,940
TETPPb=33
TETPHF=0,003
U-234=9,7E-08(air)
U-234=2,4E-09(fresh
water)
U-234=2,31E-11(salt
water)

230

Adrian Alexandru Badea, Irina Vod, Cristian-Florian Dinc

HTPicom,i potential of human toxicity of i substance emitted in a certain compartment;

FAETPicom,i ecotoxicity potential on fresh water of a i substance emitted in a certain
compartment;
MAETPicom,i ecotoxicity potential on salt water of i substance emitted in a certain compartment;
mi amount of i substance emitted in the respective compartment
TETPicom,i ecotoxicity potential on the terrestrial systems of i substance emitted in a certain
compartment;
FDcom,i= deterioration factor characterizing the i substance emitted in the respective compartment
[an/kBq];
com=compartment (air, fresh water, salt water, agricultural soil, industrial soil);
acom,i= amount of i substance emitted in the respective compartment [kBq]
mi for ADP quantity of resource i used;
mi for GWP, AP, POCP, EP amount of i substance emitted
mi for HTP, FAETP, MAETP, TETP amount of i substance emitted in the respective
compartment

Tables 7, 8 and 9 present a comparison between the impact indicators

separately calculated for each stage of the life cycle (coal, natural gas and
uranium) and by the overall life cycle.
Table 10 presents the impact of ionizing radiations determined by the
overall life cycle of uranium and by each stage separately. This indicator is
specific to the uranium chain.
Table 7
Impact indicators
ADP [t Sb eq.]
GWP [t CO2 eq.]
AP [t SO2 eq.]
POCP [t ethene eq. ]
EP [t PO43- eq.]
HTP [t 1,4 DCB eq.]
FAETP [t 1,4 DCB eq.]
MAETP [t 1,4 DCB eq.]
TETP [t 1,4 DCB eq.]

Impact indicators for the coal chain

Stages
Extraction
Treatment Transport
6,527
0
0
17,288
11,588
17,638
161
106
207
6
4
12
28
19
24
50
30
246
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Combustion
0
994,045
9,400
405
405
33,681
680
10,021
219

Impact indicators for the natural gas chain

Stages
Impact indicators
Extraction Treatment Transport Combustion
ADP [t Sb eq.]
3,192
0
0
0
GWP [t CO2 eq.]
74,639
49,809
19,765
372,418
AP [t SO2 eq.]
335
223
2
83
POCP [t ethene eq. ]
22
15
6
6
EP [t PO43- eq.]
39
27
3
21
HTP [t 1,4 DCB eq.]
468
12,157
5
175
FAETP [t 1,4 DCB eq.]
0
22
0
71
MAETP [t 1,4 DCB eq.]
353
38,983
12
15
TETP [t 1,4 DCB eq.]
1
110
0
8

Total
6,527
1,040,558
9,873
428
476
34,007
680
10,021
219
Table 8

Total
3,192
516,631
643
49
90
12,805
93
39,363
119

Comparative analysis of coal, natural gas and nuclear fuel life cycles by chains of electr. () 231

Table 9
Impact indicators for the uranium chain
Impact indicators
Total
ADP [t Sb eq.]
0.086
GWP [t CO2 eq.]
19,071
AP [t SO2 eq.]
63
POCP [t ethene eq. ]
3.1
EP [t PO43- eq.]
3.9
HTP [t 1,4 DCB eq.]
57.6
FAETP [t 1,4 DCB eq.]
0.4
MAETP [t 1,4 DCB eq.]
5
TETP [t 1,4 DCB eq.]
0
Table 10
Assessment of the ionizing radiation impact corresponding to the uranium chain
IIR for the
IIR for salt
IIR for air
Total IIR [year]
underground
Stages
water [year]
[year]
water [year]
Extraction
0.451
0
0
0.451
Milling
26
0
0
26
Conversion
3.59E-05
1.59E-06
1.56E-08
3.75E-05
Fuel enriching
1.67E-05
4.29E-07
4.14E-09
1.71E-05
Fuel preparation
3.78E-07
0
2.16E-09
3.80E-07
Electrical energy
1.534
3.60E-05
0.009
1.5
production
Reprocessing
8.0
1.10E-05
0.048
8.1
IIR uranium by
36
4.90E-05
0.057
environments [year]
Total generated IIR
36
uranium [year]

Based on the calculated impact indicators, a comparative analysis of the

three energy chains by each impact class is presented. At the same time, the
following diagrams (Fig. 3) also present the pollutant contribution to the impact
classes.
On the basis of the results obtained for the impact analysis, the following
conclusions can be drawn:
From the point of view of the depletion of natural resources (abiotic) impact
indicator, the coal chain has the highest value (6,527 t Sb eq.) against the
value registered for the natural gas chain (3,192 t Sb eq.). The corresponding
value of the uranium chain is much lower, of only 0.086 t Sb eq.. This is
mainly due to the inferior calorific power of the fuel and the utilization
efficiency within each stage, respectively.

232

Adrian Alexandru Badea, Irina Vod, Cristian-Florian Dinc

1,200,000

7,000
1,000,000

6,000

800,000

ADP[t Sb eq./FU]

5,000

600,000

4,000

6,527
3,000

400,000

2,000

3,192

200,000

1,000
0

C oa l

0
Coal

Natural gas

N a t ur a l
ga s

Uranium
C O2

Fig. 3.1 Assessment of the energy chains by the

ADP indicator.

CH4

U r ani um

N2O

Fig. 3.2 Assessment of the energy chains by the GWP

indicator.

500
450

450

400

400

350

POCP[t ethene eq./FU]

EP[t phosfate eq./FU]

350
300
250
200
150
100
50

300
250
200
150
100
50
0

0
Coal

Natural gas

NH3

NO2

NH4

COD

Coal

Uranium

Natural gas

CO

NO

Fig. 3.3 Assessment of the energy chains by the EP

indicator.

SO2

CH4

NO2

Uranium

CH2O

Fig. 3.4 Assessment of the energy chains by the

POCP indicator.

35,000

700
30,000

HTP[t 1,4 DCB eq./FU]

600
25,000

500
20,000

400
15,000

300
10,000

200

5,000

100

0
Coal

Natural gas

Uranium

SO2

NH3

NO2

Dust

Phenol

Arsenic

Nickel

Cadmium

Selenium

Beryllium

Other pollutants

CH2O

P he n ol

CH2O

Pb

Pb

Phenyl chloride

HCl

HF

P he n y l c h l o r i de

HF

Be r y l l i um

S e l e n i um

Va n a d i u m

Ot he r p ol l ut a nt s

Fig. 3.5 Assessment of energy chains by the HTP

indicator.

C oa l

N at ur al gas

U r ani um

Fig. 3.6 Assessment of energy chains by the FAETP

indicator.

Comparative analysis of coal, natural gas and nuclear fuel life cycles by chains of electr. () 233

4 0 ,0 0 0

MAETP[t 1,4 DCB eq./FU]

3 5 ,0 0 0
3 0 ,0 0 0
2 5 ,0 0 0
2 0 ,0 0 0
1 5 ,0 0 0
1 0 ,0 0 0
5 ,0 0 0
0
C o al

N a tu ra l g a s

U ra n iu m

CH2O

Pb

P h e n y l c h lo rid e

HF

V a n a d iu m

S e le n iu m

M e rc u ry

N ic k e l

O th e r p o llu ta n ts

FAETP[t SO2 eq./FU]

Fig.3.7 Assessment of the energy chains by MAETP indicator.

12,000

250

10,000

200

8,000

150

6,000

100

4,000

50

2,000

0
Coa l

N a t ur a l ga s

Ur a ni um

Coal

Natural gas

SO2

NH3

Uranium

NO2

Fig. 3.8 Assessment of the energy chains by the AP

indicator.

M er cur y

V anad ium

B er yl lium

Selenium

Ot her p o ll ut ant s

C H2 O

Pb

HF

Fig. 3.9 Assessment of the energy chains

by the TETP indicator.

By analyzing the human toxicity impact indicator, we can draw the

following conclusions: the coal chain has the highest value (approximately
34,000 t 1,4 DCB eq.) especially due to the pollutants generated during the
combustion stage, such as arsenic (51%), dust (22%), NO2 (12%) and nickel
(6%), the rest of pollutants representing less than 9%. As concerns the natural
gas chain, HTP represents approximately 12,800 t 1,4 DCB eq., mainly due to
the lead emissions in soil generated during the treatment stage (94%). The
uranium chain presents a value of 60 t 1,4 DCB eq. for the same indicator
mainly due to the NO2 emission (63%).
Relating to the acidification indicator, the values obtained in this study are
10,200 t SO2 eq. corresponding to the coal chain (the contribution of the SO2

234

Adrian Alexandru Badea, Irina Vod, Cristian-Florian Dinc

amounting to 80%) 640 t SO2 eq. for the natural gas chain (the contribution of
the SO2 emission amounting to 51% and of the NOx to 43%) and 60 t SO2 eq.
for the uranium chain, the pollutants causing this impact category being SO2
which contributes approximately 76% and NOx having a 24% share within the
total calculated value for this indicator.
From the point of view of the eutrophication indicator, the life cycle of coal
registers a value of 476 t phosphate eq., while natural gas presents a value of
90 t phosphate eq.. For the uranium chain the registered value is 4 t phosphate
eq., by far lower than in the other two cases. The main pollutant contributing
to this impact class is NO2 (NOx), regardless of the utilized type of fuel; in the
case of the coal chain its contribution rises to 92% mainly generated during
the combustion stage; the nitrogen oxide contribution in the case of the natural
gas chain is 81_% while the in the case of the uranium chain it reaches
approximately 100_%.
As concerns the photochemical pollution indicator, the values obtained in
this study are 428 t ethene eq. for the coal chain (the SO2 emission contributes
75%), 48 t ethene eq. for the natural gas chain (the CH4 emission contributes
47%, SO2 contributes 27% and CO contributes 16%) and only 3 t ethene
equivalent for the uranium chain, the SO2 emission contributing
approximately 64% of the total value of this indicator.
The freshwater aquatic toxicity indicator has the following values: for the
coal chain 680 t 1,4 DCB eq. of which beryllium contributes 44%, selenium
23%, vanadium 15%; in the case of the natural gas chain 93 t 1,4 DCB eq. of
which CH2O mainly contributes 77%, while for uranium 0,4 t 1,4 DCB eq.
covered 100% by HF.
The marine aquatic toxicity indicator has the following values: for the coal
chain 10,021 t 1,4 DCB eq. of which the main pollutants are vanadium
contributing 32%, selenium 30%, mercury 10% and nickel 9,5%; in the case
of the natural gas chain, the value is 39,363 t 1,4 DCB eq., of which lead
contributes 100%, and in the case of the uranium chain the value of this
indicator is 5 t 1,4 DCB eq. of which HF contribution is 100%.
The terrestrial eco-toxicity indicator registers the following values: for the
coal chain 219 t 1,4 DCB eq. with the following pollutant contributions:
mercury 54%, vanadium 15%, beryllium 11% and selenium 7%; for the
natural gas the value of the indicator is 119 t 1,4 DCB eq. within which lead
contributes 93%, and for the uranium chain the indicator value is insignificant
as compared with the natural gas and coal chains (0.0003 t 1,4 DCB eq.).

Comparative analysis of coal, natural gas and nuclear fuel life cycles by chains of electr. () 235

5. Sensitivity analysis
Within this analysis the influence of the impact classes in establishing the
environmental optimum energy chain has been determined. To this goal, the
impact indicators have been divided into three classes as follows:
Class 1 is made up of the following impact indicators: GWP and ADP;
Class 2 is made up of the following impact indicators: AP, EP,
FAETP, MAETP and TETP;
Class 3 is made up of the following impact indicators: POCP, HTP and
IIR.
Considering that the assessment of the energy chains by the impact classes
established within paragraph 4 do not have values reported at the same scale, a
normalization of the assessments is necessary. Therefore, the normalization of the
values within the [0,1] interval, developed by means of the relation given below
has been considered:
Ei
, Where:
(2)
Ni =
E max
Ei represents the assessment of the energy chains by the i impact class;
Emax represents the maximum value between the assessments of the energy
chains by the same i impact class.
The normalized matrix is given in table 11, and the graphical
representation is developed in Fig. 4.
Table 11
Normalized matrix
Filiere

GWP

ADP

AP

EP

FAETP

MAETP

TETP

POCP

HTP

IIR

F1

0.255

F2

0.496

0.489

0.065

0.189

0.137

0.543

0.112

0.3770

F3

0.018

0.00001

0.006

0.008

0.0007

0.0001

0.000001

0.007

0.0017

GW P
1

II R

ADP

1
0

HT P

AP

0
0

POC P

EP

T ET P

F A ET P
M A ET P

C a rbune

G a z na t ura l

Ura niu

Fig.4 The global evaluation of the coal, natural gas and uranium life cycle

236

Adrian Alexandru Badea, Irina Vod, Cristian-Florian Dinc

In the table 11, F1 represents the coal chain, F2 is the natural gas chain and
F3 the uranium chain.
Fig. 4 points out that the coal chain has the highest maximum value for the
majority of impact indicators, the natural gas chain, in general, has average values
for the same impact indicators, while, in the case of the uranium chain there is
only one maximum value, that for the IIR impact indicator. Nevertheless, it is not
certain whether the coal chain is the most polluting one. In order to determine this
it is necessary to make the sensitivity analysis where the classes of impact
indicators, defined above, have different shares.
When calculating the normalized matrix it was considered that all the
impact classes have the same share. Further, the shares corresponding to the
impact classes are presented. The meaning of the share values is the following:
value 1 for the minor impact and the value 5 for major impact, respectively.
Three cases were analyzed:
Case 1: class I is given the value 5, while all the other classes the value 1;
Case 2: class II is given the value 5, while all the others, the value 1;
Case 3: class III is given the value 5, while all the others, the value 1.
Table 12 presents the results obtained in the three cases.
Based on the energy chain assessments and considering the three large
classes, three triangles were formed whose area was calculated by means of
Herons formula, considering that the area of a triangle, in general, with the a,b
and c sides and the semiperimeter p=(a+b+c)/2 is:
S = p ( p a )( p b)( p c) ,
(3)
Table 12
Case 1
F1
F2
F3
Case 2
F1
F2
F3
Case 3
F1
F2
F3

Assessment of the energy chains

Class I-"5"
Class II-"1"
Class III-"1"
10
4.26
2
4.93
1.93
0.49
0.09
0.01
1.01
Class I -"1"
Class II-"5"
Class III-"1"
2
21.28
2
0.99
9.67
0.49
0.02
0.07
1.01
Class I -"1"
Class II-"1"
Class III-"5"
2
4.26
10
0.99
1.93
2.45
0.02
0.01
5.04

The greater the area, the greater the global impact of the respective chain.
This enables us to obtain a single evaluation for each energy chain. Table
13 presents the single evaluations for each energy chain in all the three cases. It

Comparative analysis of coal, natural gas and nuclear fuel life cycles by chains of electr. () 237

should be noticed that in all the three cases the most polluting chain is the coal
one, followed by the natural gas and uranium.
Table 13
Single evaluation of the energy chains
Case I
Case II
Case III
F1 coal
23.89
30.15
23.89
F2 natural gas
4.94
5.32
2.82
F3 uranium
0.05
0.04
0.06

6. Conclusions

The paper carries put a global analysis of the coal, natural gas and uranium
chains including: the inventory analysis (quantitative analysis), impact analysis
(qualitative analysis) and sensitivity analysis (selection of the optimum ecological
chain).
As a result of the inventory analysis the main pollutants generated along
the life cycles have been identified. Thus, within the coal chain the main
pollutants are carbon dioxide (CO2=1,020,011 t/UF), dust particles (PM10=9,205
t/UF), sulfur dioxide (SO2=6,699 t/UF), nitrogen dioxide (NO2=3,350 t/UF) and
methane (CH4=912 t/UF). The main pollutants generated during the life cycle of
natural gas are: carbon dioxide (CO2=437,909 t/UF), methane (CH4=3,740 t/UF),
nitrogen dioxide (NO2=561 t/UF), carbon monoxide (CO=283 t/UF), sulfur
dioxide (SO2=275 t/UF). During the uranium life cycle, the radioactive emissions
are much lower from the quantitative point of view than the non-radioactive ones.
The main non-radioactive emissions generated are: CO2=18,700 t/UF, SO2=40
t/UF, NO2=30 t/UF and CH4=10 t/UF.
Within the impact analysis the impact classes based on the collected
pollutants in the inventory analysis were established. The impact analysis made it
possible to determine the contribution of each pollutant from the respective
impact class. The main conclusions that have been drawn have been: from the
point of view of the impact indicator the natural resources depletion-abiotic
depletion, the coal chain has the highest value (6,527 t Sb eq.) against the value
registered for the natural gas (3,192 t Sb eq.). The value corresponding to the
uranium chain is much lower, only 0.086 t Sb eq. From the point of view of the
global warming impact indicator, the coal chain registers a value of 1,040,558 t
CO2 eq., and the natural gas a value of 516,631 t CO2 eq. The value for uranium is
only 19,071 t CO2 eq.. The main pollutant contributing to this impact class is CO2,
the latter participating 98% in the case of the coal and uranium chains and 85%,
respectively, in the case of the natural gas chain. Moreover, within the last chain,
methane emission has a 15% share mainly generated during the extraction and
transport stages. By analyzing the human toxicity impact indicator, the coal
chain has the highest value (approximately 34,000 t 1,4 DCB eq.), especially due

238

Adrian Alexandru Badea, Irina Vod, Cristian-Florian Dinc

to the pollutants generated during the combustion stage, such as arsenic (51%),
dust (22%), NO2 (12%) and nickel (6%), the rest of pollutants representing less
than 9%. As concerns the natural gas chain, HTP is approximately 12,800 t 1,4
DCB eq., mainly due to the lead emissions in the soil, generated in the treatment
stage (94%). For the same indicator, the uranium chain presents the value of 60 t
1,4 DCB eq., mainly due to the NO2 (63%) emission.
The sensitivity analysis enabled the selection of the optimum chain from
the environmental point of view (utilizing the impact indicators calculated during
the de impact analysis as criteria). In conclusion, the uranium chain is the least
polluting one. Even when considering the ionizing radiation impact indicator the
hierarchy of the three energy chains analyzed in this study remains unchanged. On
the other hand, the coal chain has a major environmental impact, but this is also
due to the fact that the energy solution utilized has not envisaged flue gas
treatment installations.
REFERENCES
[1] A. Badea, T. Apostol, C. Dinca, Evaluarea impactului asupra mediului utilizand analiza ciclului
de viata, Editura Politehnica Press, Bucuresti, 2004
[2] *** Strategia Energetica a Romaniei in perioada 2007-2020, www.minind.ro.
[3] P.Rousseaux, T.Apostol, Valeur environnementale de lenergie, Presses polytechnique et
universitaires romandes et INSA de Lyon, 2000
[4] *** S.N. Nuclearelectrica S.A., Raport Anual, 2007
[5] C. Dinca, These de doctorat: Evaluation environnementale et tehnico-economique du cycle de
vie de la combustion du gaz natural et propositions dameliorations technique, Bucarest,
2006
[6] P.L.Spath, M.K.Mann,D.R. Kerr, Life Cycle Assessment of Coal-fired Power Production,
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Colorado, 1999
[7] P.L.Spath, M.K. Mann, Life Cycle Assessment of a Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Power
Generation System, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Colorado, 2000
[8] D.V. Spitzley, G.A. Keoleian, Life Cycle Environmental and Economic Assessment of Willow
Biomass Electricity. A Comparison with Other Renewable and Non-Renewable Sources,
Center of Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan, 2004
[9] *** Externe National Implementation, Germany, 1997
[10]
Guide
on
Environmental
Life
Cycle
Assessment,
Part
2b,
http://www.bidenuniv.nl/cml/lca2/index.html, 2001.